A.M. NO. 02-2-07-SC

A.M. NO. 02-2-07-SC Effective May 01, 2002

EN BANC RESOLUTION

RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 5, RULE 110 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Acting on the Memorandum dated 2 February 2002 of Court Administrator Prosbitero J. Velasco, Jr. submitting for this Court's consideration and approval the proposed amendment to Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the amendment to Sec. 5, Rule 110 so as to read as follows:"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. x x x ."This amendment to Rule 110 shall take effect on the first day of May 2002 following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before 30 April 2002.

April 10, 2002. HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. Chief Justice

Associate Justices:

JOSUE N. BELLOSILLO JOSE A.R. MELO REYNATO S. PUNO JOSE C. VITUG SANTIAGO M. KAPUNAN VICENTE V. MENDOZA ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO SABINO E. DE LEON, JR. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ ANTONIO T. CARPIO

The Office of the Mayor of Las Pinas refused to issue permit to petitioners to hold rally a rally in front of the Justice Hall of Las Pinas on the ground that it was prohibited under Supreme Court En Banc Resolution dated July 7,1998 in A.M. No. 98-7-02-SC, entitled, "Re: Guidelines on the Conduct of Demonstrations, Pickets, Rallies and Other Similar Gatherings in the Vicinity of the Supreme Court and All Other Courts." Petitioners thus initiated the instant proceedings. They submit that the Supreme Court gravely abused its discretion and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in promulgating those guidelines.

Held: We shall first dwell on the critical argument made by petitioners that the rules constitute an abridgment of the people's aggregate rights of free speech, free expression, peaceful assembly and petitioning government for redress of grievances citing Sec. 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution that "no law shall be passed abridging" them.

It is true that the safeguarding of the people's freedom of expression to the end that individuals may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion, is essential to free government. But freedom of speech and expression despite its indispensability has its limitations. It has never been understood as the absolute right to speak whenever, however, and wherever one pleases, for the manner, place, and time of public discussion can be constitutionally controlled. [T]he better policy is not liberty untamed but liberty regulated by law where every freedom is exercised in accordance with law and with due regard for the rights of others.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the realities of life in a complex society preclude an absolutist interpretation of freedom of expression where it does not involve pure speech but speech plus physical actions like picketing. There are other significant societal values that must be accommodated and when they clash, they must all be weighed with the promotion of the general welfare of the people as the ultimate objective. In balancing these values, this Court has accorded freedom of expression a preferred position in light of its more comparative importance. Hence, our rulings now musty in years hold that only the narrowest time, place and manner regulations that are specifically tailored to serve an important governmental interest may justify the application of the balancing of interests test in derogation of the people's right of free speech and expression. Where said regulations do not aim particularly at the evils within the allowable areas of state control but, on the contrary, sweep within their ambit other activities as to operate as an overhanging threat to free discussion, or where upon their face they are so vague, indefinite, or inexact as to permit punishment of the fair use of the right of free speech, such regulations are void.

Prescinding from this premise, the Court reiterates that judicial independence and the fair and orderly administration of justice constitute paramount governmental interests that can justify the regulation of the public's right of free speech and peaceful assembly in the vicinity of courthouses. In the case of In Re: Emil P. Jurado, the Court pronounced in no uncertain terms that:

"x x x freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. For the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the context, in other words, of viable

independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community. x x x" (In Re: Emil P. Jurado, 243 SCRA 299, 323-324 [1995])

It is sadly observed that judicial independence and the orderly administration of justice have been threatened not only by contemptuous acts inside, but also by irascible demonstrations outside, the courthouses. They wittingly or unwittingly, spoil the ideal of sober, non-partisan proceedings before a cold and neutral judge. Even in the United States, a prohibition against picketing and demonstrating in or near courthouses, has been ruled as valid and constitutional notwithstanding its limiting effect on the exercise by the public of their liberties. X x x

The administration of justice must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair and it is the duty of this Court to eliminate everything that will diminish if not destroy this judicial desideratum. To be sure, there will be grievances against our justice system for there can be no perfect system of justice but these grievances must be ventilated through appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings. Such a mode is in keeping with the respect due to the courts as vessels of justice and is necessary if judges are to dispose their business in a fair fashion. It is the traditional conviction of every civilized society that courts must be insulated from every extraneous influence in their decisions. The facts of a case should be determined upon evidence produced in court, and should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies. (In Re: Petition to Annul En Banc Resolution A.M. 98-7-02-SC - Ricardo C. Valmonte and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Transparency in Government [ULAT], G.R. No. 134621, Sept. 29, 1998)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In Re: Petition to Annul En Banc Resolution A.M. 98-7-02-SC – Ricardo C. Valmonte and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Transparency in Government [ULAT], G.R. No. 134621, Sept. 29, 1998

B.P. Blg. 880 did not establish streets and sidewalks, among other places, as public fora. A close look at the law will reveal that it in fact prescribes reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. Thus, it requires a written permit for the holding of public assemblies in public places subject, even, to the right of the mayor to modify the place and time of the public assembly, to impose a rerouting of the parade or street march, to limit the volume of loud speakers or sound system and to prescribe other appropriate restrictions on the conduct of the public assembly.

To insulate the judiciary from mob pressure, friendly or otherwise, and isolate it from public hysteria, this Court merely moved away the situs of mass actions within a 200-meter radius from every courthouse. In fine, B.P. Blg. 880 imposes general restrictions to the time, place and manner of conducting concerted actions. On the other hand, the resolution of this Court regulating demonstrations adds specific restrictions as they involve judicial independence and the orderly administration of justice. There is thus no discrepancy between the two sets of regulatory measures. Simply put, B.P. Blg. 880 and the assailed resolution complement each other.